I'm a contributing editor to Forbes Magazine, where I write about games and technology. My book Of Dice and Men: The Story of Dungeons & Dragons and The People Who Play It is a history of one of the most important games of our time.
I'm a primate and a skeptic. I have root access and I'm not afraid to use it. I'm a beer geek. I can make stone tools and arrowheads. I drop science like Galileo dropped the orange. I solemnly swear that I am up to no good.

Dreamliner's Bad News May Be Getting Worse, And Not Just For Boeing

The burnt out power unit from a Japan Airlines 787 Dreamliner. (photo: National Transportation Safety Board)

No one knows yet what’s causing electrical problems on Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner jets. But just days after the global fleet was grounded by aviation officials and investigators began probing the jet’s high-tech electrical system, one thing is becoming clear: The fix isn’t likely to be simple, and the Dreamliner could be on the ground for a long time.

The 787′s troubles began with an incident in Boston on January 7, when a battery on an empty jet caught fire. On January 11, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration ordered a review of the 787’s critical systems. But on January 16 another Dreamliner was forced to make an emergency landing in Japan after on-board alarms indicated smoke in an electrical compartment, and passengers reported a burning smell in the cabin. As a result, the FAA ordered all operators of U.S.-registered Boeing 787 to cease operations. International aviation authorities followed suit, and by January 17th, the worldwide fleet of had been grounded.

It didn’t take long for investigators to discover the root of the problem: The high-tech Dreamliner uses lithium-ion batteries –the same kind you might find in your laptop or cell phone– and electric motors instead of traditional hydraulic controls. Battery-based systems are smaller and lighter, and were supposed to make the Dreamliner far more fuel efficient. But in the few cases under investigation, the batteries heated up and caught on fire. So investigators tried to figure out why.

The best-case scenario for Boeing and its airline clients was that the batteries were simply over-charged, making the problem user error, as opposed to some deeper flaw in the Dreamliner’s design. But on Sunday the National Transportation Safety Board completed its examination of flight recorder data from the jet that caught fire in Boston, and determined that the affected battery did not exceed its designed voltage.

Now investigators at the NTSA, the FAA and their international counterparts are widening their focus to examine the entire auxiliary power unit –and that’s where Boeing starts to have a problem. In addition to its novel electrical design, the Dreamliner pioneered new levels of subcontracted manufacturing: While each 787 was assembled at Boeing’s plant in Everett, Washington, more than 70% of the jets’ individual components were outsourced to some 900 subcontractors all over the world.

By outsourcing construction of the Dreamliner’s systems, Boeing reduced the complexity and cost of manufacturing the new jets. But they also increased the complexity of tracking down problems; the auxiliary power unit alone contains parts from Japan’s GS Yuasa Corporation, France’s Thales Group and North Carolina-based UTC Aerospace Systems, a subsidiary of Connecticut’s United Technologies.

Investigators will have to deal with a complicated network of global interests, experts and technologies just to figure out how the Dreamliners’ power system was supposed to work in the first place, much less how it ended up broken. It’s not the sort of problem you can unravel in just a couple of weeks.

Further complicating the problem: The different international aviation authorities involved in the investigation already seem to be taking different approaches. Japanese officials seem focused on GS Yuasa’s batteries, while the FAA and NTSB seem to be more interested in UTC’s electrical controllers.

At this point, the best-case scenario for Boeing is probably for investigators to decide that the affected Dreamliners simply had bad batteries; If that happens, the batteries can simply be replaced, and the fleet can be returned to flight.

The worst case scenario: Investigators decide that the use of lithium ion batteries is inherently flawed, and Boeing has to to totally redesign the jet’s electrical system and deploy major fixes across the fleet.

Either way, it could be a long time before anyone knows what went wrong, how to fix it, and Boeing manages to roll out the repairs to the fifty Dreamliners on the ground worldwide.

The longer the Dreamliner is grounded, the bigger this problem gets. Right now United Airlines is the only US carrier that actually has 787s in its fleet, so it wasn’t difficult to swap out the affected jets. But the company has only taken possession of six of the fifty Dreamliners it ordered. Meanwhile, American Airlines is waiting for 42 Dreamliners and Delta Air Lines for 18; overall, Boeing has delivered only 5o of more than 800 Dreamliners ordered to date.

That means if the investigation drags on, airlines around the world are going to start hurting for their new Boeing aircraft. And if the problem does finally turn out to be a fundamental issue with lithium-ion batteries, other manufacturers will start to have problems, too: Airbus uses similar batteries on their A380 superjumbo jet.

So far, investors are keeping their fingers crossed. Shares of Boeing stock fell just 1.17% on Monday, and are down only 1.59% for the month to date.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

I am a big fan of the 787 and its no-bleed systems. They did away with the 1960′s technology pneumatic tubes and pipes and all that heavy hardware that also robs the engines of thrust. Its an aggressive, but groundbreaking approach, No hot bleed air to the wings, no compressed air from the APU. The passengers love the cabin, which can be a 6,000 ft cabin at altitude, a first. Better air, more Humidiity. The Crew has a P Beta system which rolls the airplane into a dead engine, even with your feet on the floor. Its easy to fly, and land. True, the hydraulic motors are smaller, but morepowerful, and need a bump to 270VAC. Boeing is an airframer, and has always outsourced the key components of their airplanes. Its most likely the batch of batteries from Yuasa or the controllers form UTC. Everything sat for awhile on the shelf while the airplane was delayed. No one wants Boeing to build batteries, or an APU, let alone an engine. That would be a scary ride. They are however, a great engineering and airframer, and will get to the bottom of the 787 problems.

With all due respect, outsourcing is not a direct cause of this issue. Boeing always outsources the APU to firms that are specialized in the field and have more experience. Having said that, Boeing engineers would have provided the specs for the device and approved test plans. Given their lack of experience with lithium batteries, the Boeing engineers could have made mistakes that were not apparent.

I am sorry, but fly-by-wire systems have been used in aviation for a long time now – Boeing 777, A320 & A380, they all use electronics to power their control surfaces. The no bleed system and the elimination of hydraulics has very little to do with the control surfaces on the 787.

@ezhil…The main concern with fly-by-wire systems is reliability. While traditional mechanical or hydraulic control systems usually fail gradually, the loss of all flight control computers could immediately render the aircraft uncontrollable.

These control surfaces and stability surfaces are no longer hydraulicaly actuated. I grant you there are redundant systems (3 & 4 systems) but these are for computer failures.

What are you going to do when an failed electrical servo motor freezes up your right aileron?

As I remember, some planes in the past, on losing their #1 engine, would lose all hydraulics. Also, a famous flight lost all hydraulics when an exploding engine compromised the hydraulic lines.

As an example, The Spruce Goose, for all its size, could only carry 500 fully outfitted troops. (A speculative figure) It weighed 400,000 lbs (dry weight) whereas the 787 weighs considerably less at 250,000 lbs (dry weight) yet carries a maxium takeoff weight of cargo/passengers, much greater than that of the Spruce Goose.

The Goose was loaded down with hydraulics including two 100 KW generators on the flight deck to power the hydraulics. Hughes overdid it, and it worked well.

“It Worked Well” is the operative term here. Modern day hydraulics are quite sophisticated and operate under severe conditions with minor losses of performance over a long period of time. Hydraulics (and pneumatics) are very very simple.

If an electric motor is the primary means of creating an actuating force on the control and stability surfaces of my hypothetical airplane, I want a back-up hydraulic system.

I am well aware that fly-by-wire has been used for many years….this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about that power that actually “moves” the rods attached to the control surfaces. In-out, in-out.

You may discover that such a hydraulic back-up exists on the 787…I may be wrong, but I know what I am talking about when it comes to reliability of electrical systems in this design over hydraulic systems.